COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Global Inland Fisheries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COVID-19 pandemic impacts on global inland fisheries Gretchen L. Stokesa,1, Abigail J. Lynchb, Benjamin S. Lowea, Simon Funge-Smithc, John Valbo‐Jørgensenc, BRIEF REPORT and Samuel J. Smidtd aSchool of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; bNational Climate Adaptation Science Center, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192; cFisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 00153 Rome, Italy; and dSoil and Water Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 Edited by Nils Chr. Stenseth, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and approved October 2, 2020 (received for review August 6, 2020) The COVID-19 pandemic has led to environmental recovery in name (9)] help rationalize these clusters: 1) lessened pressure from some ecosystems from a global “anthropause,” yet such evidence initial fishing bans or restrictions (Murray–Darling and Orange), for natural resources with extraction or production value (e.g., commercial fishing reductions (Ganges), and halted tourism fisheries) is limited. This brief report provides a data-driven global (Lempa); 2) no change in pressure where increased domestic de- snapshot of expert-perceived impacts of COVID-19 on inland fish- mands counteract transboundary trade restrictions (Lake Malawi), eries. We distributed an online survey assessing perceptions of temporary restaurant and tourism closures negate long-term eco- inland fishery pressures in June and July 2020 to basin-level inland nomic pressures (Guadiana), and fish harvest and sales continue fishery experts (i.e., identified by the Food and Agriculture Orga- (Santiago); and 3) increased pressure where high unemployment nization of the United Nations across the global North and South); increases subsistence fish catch (Brahmaputra), fisheries provide 437 respondents from 79 countries addressed 93 unique hydrolog- livelihood safeguards from job losses (Mekong), and lost tourism ical basins, accounting for 82.1% of global inland fish catch. Based livelihoods increase illegal fishing in nature reserves (San Juan). on the responses analyzed against extrinsic fish catch and human Across major basins (i.e., basins accounting for 95% of inland development index data, pandemic impacts on inland fisheries 1) catch; n = 232, 50 basins), prominent patterns emerged: perceived add gradation to the largely positive environmental narrative of increased pressure in areas of relatively lower catch and lower the global pandemic and 2) identify that basins of higher provi- HDI (46.0%); decreased pressure in higher-catch, lower-HDI sioning value are perceived to experience greater fishery pressures areas (38%); no change in higher-catch, higher-HDI areas (48%); but may have limited compensatory capacity to mitigate COVID-19 and evenly distributed pressure responses (±4%) in lower-catch, impacts along with negative pressures already present. higher-HDI areas (Fig. 2A). Catch–HDI quadrants represent 27, SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 23, 12, and 38% of responses, clockwise from lower left (Fig. 2A). coronavirus | freshwater fish | food security | livelihoods | recreation Respondents perceived increased pressure to fisheries with notable provisioning ecosystem service value, measured by high production nland fisheries are important global contributors to food se- and/or subsistence role (i.e., low HDI) (Fig. 2B). Icurity, livelihoods, and ecosystem services (1) while supporting a viable livelihood alternative and societal buffer with low bar- Discussion riers to entry (2) in rapid-onset crises (e.g., wars and pandemics). This study contributes a data-driven perspective to COVID-19 Preliminary evidence of the “anthropause” (3) from the COVID- impacts on inland fisheries complementary to studies on fishers ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 19 pandemic has suggested some positive ecological responses and (10) and at-risk fishes (11). Responses applied geographically to a improved ecosystem functioning (4) from reduced human activity. deductive pressure typology (i.e., three provided response choices) However, the ecological responses of some provisioning resources yield locally clustered perceptions of COVID-19 impacts. This may vary depending on how the resources are used (e.g., fish for distribution extending beyond positive evidence of direct (e.g., food or leisure). Inland fisheries may offer short-term, midpandemic reduced human–wildlife disturbance) and indirect (e.g., reduced employment (e.g., fishing and processing), food resources, and so- pollution) benefits of the “anthropause” reflects interdependent, cially distanced recreation, but sustained yield is also challenged by and often essential, provisioning services of inland fisheries (e.g., shifting harvest restrictions and consumer demands exacerbated or food and income). Such may apply to other extracted multiuse compounded by preexisting pressures (e.g., dams and pollution). This resources (e.g., timber and cultivated crops). brief report assesses expert-perceived pressures from COVID-19 (increased, no change, or lessened) on global inland fisheries and Perceived Impacts. Respondent comments offer several important relates these data to three use indicators: 1) reported inland fish considerations for spatial patterns of fishery pressure, including 1) catch, 2) human development index [HDI; composite metric: life preexisting, persistent, or confounded environmental stressors; 2) expectancy, education, and living standard (5)], and 3) fishery fishery composition (e.g., species), type, and access; 3) consumer provisioning value (high catch and/or low HDI). behavior; 4) fishery management/enforcement; and 5) regional employment opportunities. Possible sources of respondent varia- Results tion include 1) virus and lockdown onset, severity, and extent; 2) We received 437 survey responses from 79 countries and 93 hy- institutional adaptive capacity; and 3) temporal interpretation of drological basins [HydroBASINS Level-3 (6)]. These basins ac- pressures. count for 82.1% of reported global inland fish catch (7); 148 respondents (34%) perceived increased pressure from COVID-19, 161 (37%) perceived no change, and 128 (29%) perceived lessened Author contributions: G.L.S., A.J.L., B.S.L., S.F.-S., J.V.-J., and S.J.S. designed research; G.L.S. pressure (Materials and Methods). The term “pressure” used here is performed research; G.L.S., A.J.L., and S.J.S. analyzed data; and G.L.S., A.J.L., B.S.L., S.F-S., broadly inclusive of multiple fishery-specific pressures (fishing, J.V-J., and S.J.S. wrote the paper. environmental, and other external drivers), as the greatest threats The authors declare no competing interest. to inland fisheries originate from outside the fishing sector (8). This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 Clear clusters of like responses emerged (Fig. 1). Notably, re- (CC BY). spondents perceived increased pressure in southeastern Asia and 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected]. eastern Africa, lessened pressure in southeastern South America This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/ and Oceania, and highly mixed responses in North America and doi:10.1073/pnas.2014016117/-/DCSupplemental. Europe. Pertinent individual respondent comments [by river-basin First published November 2, 2020. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014016117 PNAS | November 24, 2020 | vol. 117 | no. 47 | 29419–29421 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 Fig. 1. Perceived inland fisheries responses to COVID-19, where responses (n = 359, excludes nongeolocated responses) and major basins account for 82% and 95% of global inland fish catch, respectively. Respondents indicated decreased fishery pressure may arise transpires from relaxed enforcement. Increased pressure also from reduced market demand and stay-at-home orders pre- appeared connected to a surge in subsistence fishers as jobless venting travel to and within fishing areas. In some tropical re- urban or migrant laborers return to rural areas seeking alterna- gions where the crisis coincided with peak fishing season, tive livelihoods. First-time fishers lacking system knowledge are reduced access and fishing effort may also increase brood fish more likely to introduce destructive fishing practices or harvest survival and replenish fish stocks (12). No perceived change in at-risk species (11). pressure may result from families consuming rather than selling fish or unaffected fishing activity from modest lockdown mea- Links to Fishery Provisioning Services. Lessened pressure in higher- sures’ negligible economic disruption. Increased pressure may catch, lower-HDI areas is supported by decreased commercial occur where fish are a primary source of food or income, rec- fishing or preexisting institutional oversight; no change or increased reational fishing is incentivized and accessible, or illegal fishing pressure in higher-catch, higher-HDI areas by continued or AB 1 30 High Catch High Catch High Low HDI High HDI Provisioning 20 19 14 6 13 8 25 Value 0.5 20 15 -0.5 0 0.5 10 5 -0.5 0 Mean Normalized % Global Fish Catch Low Catch Low Catch 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Low HDI High HDI Lessen No Change Increase 15 19 29 -1 30 28 31 Perceived Pressure Response Lessen No Change Increase Fig. 2. Perceived COVID-19 pressure responses (n = 232, excludes responses outside major basins, without HDI data, and nongeolocated) related to (A) mean normalized HDI and global